Page 3831 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 25 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As we heard in question time yesterday, there is dispute about what the evidence actually says. Mr Rattenbury is less keen on what the AMA say and more keen on what other people say. In terms of the objective of putting the safety of the ACT community ahead of other policy objectives, I do not think what we are doing today does that. I do not think making cannabis more available for use does that. I do not think sending a message that might lead to more drug driving does that. I am glad the government is not supporting this—nor will we. It is a nonsense amendment and does not deserve support.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (11.28): To be clear, the clause we propose today is to insert an objects clause, which is common in legislation. Many pieces of legislation have an objects clause because they seek to clearly spell out the intent. My proposal states:
The objects of this Act include the following:
(a) to minimise harm resulting from the use of drugs of dependence;
(b) to promote a balanced approach across the three pillars of harm minimisation—
(i) demand reduction; and
(ii) supply reduction; and
(iii) harm reduction;
(c) to reflect an evidence-based approach to drug policy, which puts the health and safety of the ACT community ahead of all other policy objectives.
That is exactly the approach we want to take under our Drugs of Dependence Act in the ACT. I am disappointed at the lack of support today. Mr Hanson has on a number of occasions sought to represent my previous comments, in question time yesterday and in this debate previously, in the least flattering light he can think of. Whilst that is his modus operandi, it fails to respect the fact that I am seeking to reflect the nuance and complexity in these discussions. It is not the black-and-white view of the world Mr Hanson has sought to portray in his comments.
I have been very clear in my comments that cannabis use can present risks for people; there is no question about that. The question is: how do we deal with those risks and what approach do we take to it? That is the nuance we are trying to bring to this discussion.
Proposed new clause 4A negatived.
Clause 5.
MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Social Inclusion and Equality, Minister for Tertiary Education, Minister for Tourism and Special Events and Minister for Trade, Industry and Investment) (11.30): I move amendment No 4 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 3919]. This amendment retains offences in the Drugs of Dependence Act for possession and cultivation but includes an exception such that those offences do not apply to anyone over 18 years of age.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video